There are only two things that could fix the Royals eventually:
New ownership, preferably with a healthy bankroll.
A payroll floor in the next CBA that would require teams to spend at least $40 million in order to be eligible for revenue-sharing money.
The payroll floor was proposed in the last CBA, but the owners wouldn’t agree to it. If they had, we wouldn’t see fire sale teams.
So, here’s the dilemma for Ozzie Guillen. What player from the Kansas City Royals will he be required to select as a member of the 2006 AL All-Star team? Matt Stairs?
Playing 2b for KC and the AL All Stars:
NAME G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
Mark Grudzielanek 39 156 23 51 9 2 2 70 10 9 19 0 1 .327 .365 .449 .814
And should be playing 2B for the St. Louis Cardinals and the NL All-Stars.
Is it a rule that there must be a representative from each team, or is that just tradition? I know that in hockey there used to be a player from each team, but they’ve gone away from that lately.
It is a very lame MLB rule.
And one of the reasons we had that dumb tie in the game a few years ago. Guys got picked who couldn’t even play.
Wiki has a pretty good article on the All Star Game.
Jim {even if they did re-edit all my contributions out over a year ago}
It depends on how ownership defines success. Fans define success by wins and losses. Some owners do that, but some define it strictly by profits and losses. Moving the franchise might generate positive cash flow in the short term that wouldn’t be generated in KC because the good folks there don’t see any point in paying good money for horrible baseball. People in another city might not be so picky.
On one hand, the Royals ARE mighty bad. And if I were George Steinbrenner, I’d be raising holy hell about the way the Royals have (seemingly) pocketed the money they get from him and from the Red Sox, rather than spending any of it to make the team better (at least, as far as we can tell so far).
On the other hand, the Tigers looked almost as bad just two years ago, but they’re looking mighty good now. So, I’m not YET prepared to state categorically that the Royals don’t have some kind of viable long-term plan for improvement.
2 years ago you could see the foundations of a future in Detroit. Mike Maroth, Nate Cornejo & Jeremy Bonderman all showed potential and were all 25 or under. So far only Cornejo has failed to develop. Overall the teams average age was 27. The Farm system was suppose to be very rich. The GM looked like he had found a clue after a decade of trading youth for garbage.
Show me a positive sign in the KC franchise. Steve Phillips passed on the GM job because the team is so hopeless and the pay so low. They might not lose 120 games but it would probably be better for baseball if they did. Glass needs to go. He is the wrong type of owner for baseball. A Penny pinching Walmartian.
Jim
You forgot about Wilfredo Ledezma, too. He never QUITE panned out. Brian Anderson, the old closer, shit the bed in a (no pun intended) royal manner.
Interesting discussion. I bleed powder blue and this horrible Royals team is just killing me. But I can’t help it, I watch every game and hope against hope that things will start to turn around. I don’t see how it can, though, the culture of losing permeates everything this organization does.
Kansas City is a baseball town…there is nothing more this city wants than a baseball team to be proud of like we had back in the 80’s. Those guys didn’t win 'em all but they played with guts. They had leaders that the young guys wanted to follow and emulate, and the vets held the young guys accountable to do their jobs. This team OTOH, is a collection of individuals, not a cohesive unit by any means.
There is nothing that stands out that this team does well…hitting? fielding? pitching? base running? scouting? It used to be that you knew the Royals were gonna do a few things…they would run on you (think Willie Wilson), they would throw you out from right field (think Bo Jackson), they would shut you down in the 9th inning (think Quizenberry), they would rob you of hits (think Frank White). Now, every good play they make seems like a stroke of luck.
Take last night’s win against the Yankees! While there’s no team I would rather beat than the Yanks, the double play that ended the game seemed like a lucky break. The Royals did not win the game as much as the Yankees lost it. It’s a terrible feeling to not be encouraged by a win against a team like NY, but that’s exactly what it feels like. It just feels like “we lucked out”.
I know the feeling. One of my old roomies (a Yankee robot) was happy about the beginning of the year. 14 games into the season, my season is pretty much over and I’m looking forward to football season (you know…the Lions).
My condolences from a baseball fan to another.
They beat the Yankees, first game. Yeeeesh.
Admittedly, today, what was it, 15-4? But they BEAT the Yankees, first game. What the hell?
It was ugly and incomprehensible. The Rain delay before the bottom of the ninth added to the freakish night. Yankee Bullpen imploded. Yanks have yet another year where postseason seems likely but the pitching will make it hard to navigate the playoffs. But I will rant about this in another thread at some point. 
Jim
Just out of curiosity, but how well are the Royals drawing this season?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
Home Attendance
RNK TEAM GMS TOTAL AVG PCT
1 NY Yankees 23 1,116,808 48,556 84.5
2 LA Dodgers 26 1,153,986 44,384 79.3
3 LA Angels 21 873,612 41,600 92.3
4 NY Mets 24 986,337 41,097 71.6
5 St. Louis 25 1,007,041 40,281 86.0
6 Chi Cubs 21 825,341 39,301 95.6
7 San Fran 25 954,736 38,189 91.9
8 Boston 22 797,831 36,265 100.2
9 Houston 27 926,909 34,329 83.8
10 Chi Sox 25 852,769 34,110 84.0
11 Atlanta 18 574,786 31,932 63.7
12 Philly 26 808,260 31,086 71.5
13 San Diego 26 801,537 30,828 72.5
14 Texas 26 735,624 28,293 57.6
15 Toronto 25 657,399 26,295 52.1
16 Seattle 29 760,579 26,226 54.9
17 Baltimore 26 667,459 25,671 53.3
18 Washington 21 535,610 25,505 56.4
19 Colorado 23 580,261 25,228 50.0
20 Milwaukee 26 648,490 24,941 58.8
21 Cleveland 23 556,912 24,213 55.8
22 Arizona 26 614,501 23,634 48.2
23 Detroit 21 491,940 23,425 58.4
24 Minnesota 23 525,246 22,836 46.9
25 Oakland 23 520,704 22,639 51.9
26 Cincinnati 24 540,620 22,525 53.6
27 Pittsburgh 22 469,765 21,352 55.7
28 Kansas City 23 417,841 **18,167** 44.5
29 Tampa Bay 23 379,804 16,513 37.7
30 Florida 21 244,408 11,638 32.0
Jim
I certainly agree that the Royals would benefit by having a team like its ‘80s crew, I disagree that KC is any longer a baseball town. Quite honestly, I don’t think most people care anymore, and the last time interest was high was before Kauffman went on to that big ol’ outfield in the sky. Since the early-to-mid '90s (after Kauffman’s death), Kansas City has been more of a football town. (And a college hoops town each March when KU goes far enough.)
This isn’t to say KC can’t return to loving baseball, but it’ll take a new owner with a better vision for the team and without the gall to ask for more tax subsidies each year–from residents in both states–to pay for his ineptitude.
Y’know, the more I think about it, I’m not sure Glass is to blame. I think Baird is.
I can’t help but think back to 2003. The Royals ended the season looking like they just needed a little bit of improvement to reach the top, and that with Beltran in his walk year, it was do-or-die in 2004. So, with Glass’s blessing, they went out and spent money to retain the services of Brian Anderson and Curtis Leskanic, and signed free agents Juan Gonzales, Benito Santiago and Scott Sullivan. A layman could easily think that these were worthy signings:
Anderson - 14-11, 3.78 ERA in 2003
Leskanic - 5-0, 2.22 ERA in 2003
Sullivan - 6-0, 3.66 ERA in 2003
Santiago - old, but a .279 batting avg in 2003, and managed to catch 108 games.
Gonzales - limited to 1/2 a season in 2003, but still hit more home runs than any Royals except Beltran in a full season. An injury risk, to be sure, but even 1/2 a season from him would have been productive
Now, somehow, in 2004, these guys all blew up in the Royals’ faces.
Anderson, the opening day starter, went 6-12 with a 5.64 ERA.
Leskanic, unhittable in 2003 (that 2.22 ERA included 1.73 for the Royals specifically), 0-3 with an 8.04 ERA :eek:
Sullivan - the “best” of the lot, 3-4 with a 4.77 ERA
Santiago - limited to 49 games due to injury
Gonzales - 1/2 a season? We wish…33 games and done. (Still, better than what the Indians got out of him in 2005!)
Now, who do you blame for not being able to tell iron pyrite from gold, the owner, or the supposed baseball man?
If Glass is to blame, it’s for trusting Allard Baird beyond the point where it should have been clear he can’t judge baseball talent for his life. He can’t seem to figure right who’s having a career year and who’s likely to stay productive. The prospects he trades for or grabs in Rule 5 flame out after one good year…if they ever get that. Glass is the man who writes the checks, and if they’re under-sized, that could certainly be a problem. But we’ve seen him open his pocketbook. Baird has a consistent habit of picking wrong.